A fair amount of reshuffling this week after carnage from near-the-top to the bottom:

* My top-two teams, Pittsburgh and Duke, survived. But No. 3 North Carolina lost to Wake Forest, which, after playing an epically creampuff schedule, handed the Heels their second consecutive ACC loss. I dropped UNC to No. 10 and jumped Wake to No. 8.

* In all, 12 of my 25 teams lost, and much of the damage came in the bottom half of the poll. The losers included No. 13, 15, 17, 18, 21,(twice), 23, 24 and 25.

* As a result, I moved six teams off the ballot, which might be a season high.

* Two newcomers were easy to ID: Gonzaga, which beat Tennessee; and Louisville, which beat Villanova. I also added Butler, Clemson Arizona State and Florida.

* I few words on Clemson (16-0), since my refusal to vote for the Tigers last week caused such a stir on the Hotline:

Truth is, I came into the season having no intention of voting for the Tigers until they beat a ranked team and no expectation of voting for the Tigers, given their weak non-conference schedule, until next weekend at the earliest (after they play Wake Forest).

And the reason was quite simple: The Tigers always, always, always start well, and just when you start thinking they’re pretty good, things fall apart:

Last year, the Tigers started 12-1, then lost seven of their next 16.

The year before that, they started 16-0 (sound familiar) and lost nine of their next 11.

The year before that, they started 11-0 and lost 11 of their next 15.

The year before that, they started 7-1 and lost 11 of their next 15.

They are fantastic in November and December, horrid in January and February (and sometimes in March, too).

(Note to Clemson fans: I know you lost in the ACC title game last year. That’s why it says “sometimes” in March.)

So while researching my preseason poll, I decided to wait out the sizzling start against a soft schedule and make the Tigers prove they deserved a spot on the ballot.

Fool me once, shame on you … fool me four times, BEAT A RANKED TEAM!

Now here we are in mid-January and the Tigers are undefeated and have not beaten a ranked team and yet I’ve got them on the ballot this week.

But given the carnage that has taken place the past two weeks (23 of 50 teams losing) … and with a team like No. 21 Boston College losing the other day to Harvard … and with No. 23 UNLV losing to TCU (???) … and with No. 25 Wisconsin losing by 13 to Purdue … I simply could not in good conscience continue to leave the undefeated Tigers unranked.

(Similar thinking on Arizona State, which I ranked this week despite its recent loss to Cal that narrow December escape against IUPUI).

So I’ve got Clemson at No. 23 this week and will play the sucker once again if the Tigers enter their annual midseason meltdown.

doktor – understand. And believe me, I am not a wilner apologist, since i don’t agree with his thinking. It’s mostly that it really doesn’t matter – the venom from Clemson fans is largely misplaced. Two points:

– if the rankings really did matter, consider the law of large numbers. We all know there isn’t any absolute, completely accurate ranking of teams; it’s largely subjective using a variety of objective info that is often at conflict. So the AP uses a large number of pollsters, so that law of large numbers allows a natural fitting of the teams and minimizes extreme bias. Yes, Wilner seems to be under-ranking Clemson. How many are over-ranking Clemson right now? In other words, if you try to correct one data point (Wilner), how do you know that all the other results are valid?

– the fact is, weekly ranking means nothing. Nothing. all it does it spur conversation. There are going to be upsets up and down the season. The only thing that counts is where you end up at the end of the season, and what your inventory of success/failure looks like that may warrant a selection and if so, seeding.

tigerking79

Clemson beat ranked miami team this year. And last year was no collapse, going to the acc championship game and getting a five seed in the tourney. Under Purnell Clemson has improved each year. If your going to vote get the facts about the teams and don’t refer to stereotypes about teams to make your judgements. How in world does the AP let a lazy sports reporter like you vote in a poll is beyond belief. For your own integerity stop voting or watch the games of the teams across the country.

medstudent

Just a question… According to your much-treasured Pomroy computer, Clemson is slated to finish with a 22-4 record in the ACC. Is this the profile of a #23 team? You cannot be serious!

You’re an idiot. Plain and simple. And how in the world do you get to vote for the Associated Press poll? That just shows that it’s a load of crap as well if you get a ballot.

Get your facts straight. You’re trying your best to get around the FACT that Clemson went 10-6 in the ACC last year, and played for the ACC Tournament Championship. Last year we didn’t collapse at all. We made the NCAA Tournament and got a horrible draw and we got upset. How many teams get upset in the NCAA Tournament each year? Just look at Davidson. Just about every team they beat got upset, so there ya’ go.

Prior to last week, how many ranked teams had Wake Forest beaten? I believe the answer to that would be zero. And where were they ranked? A lot higher than us…to say the least. You’re contradicting yourself a little bit there, buddy.

doktor floyd

bearfan,

i hear what you are saying, and i agree. there was one voter last week that had clemson at #2. i think he was just as far off as wilner was. but only with the tigers. his other votes and voting history was not quite as far fetched.

my point is, wilner’s entire voting philosophy seems to be waaaaay off base. if you google “jon wilner” you can see that over the past few years he has had this problem (i actually also googled “jon wilner is a moron” which got me some really interesting results, but i digress) and its not just his anti-tiger sentiments. it appears that he either a) has no sports know-how, b) casts his ridiculous ballots in an attempt to be different or c) a combination of both.

again, in basketball, it all gets worked out in a playoff. but in football, these polls play a huge part in a team’s destiny. i understand that one voter out of 60+ really doesnt have that much of an impact, but as i said in a previous post, with no accountability, where does this stop? if i were an AP voter, what would stop me from voting clemson #1 in football simply because of their tremendous talent (except for that bum we had starting at qb) even though they failed to execute this year week in and week out? if every voter took this mindset, instead of basing their votes on a teams performance, doesnt that compromise the system more than it already is? ideally, a playoff system in football would eliminate this variable, but i have pretty much given up hope of that ever happening. the best i can hope for is some degree of accountability from the system that is in place, to at least minimize its flaws.

(only got one more hour till im off work! thanks guys for helping the time pass!)

doktor floyd

also,

everyone is definately entitled to their own opinion. my top 25 probably might be just as crazy as wilners. but the difference is, i am not a professional sports writer that is fortunate enough to contribute to these polls. i think when when that opinion results in a voting history that is just absoludicrous (thank you mr. t for giving me that word to add to my vocabulary!) that is something that definately needs to be adressed.

MSW

Two things from an objective party (as if anyone is really objective):

1. It’s obvious what Wilner’s thinking is when he fills out his ballot, regardless of any justifications. He’s what you might call an “emotional voter.” He tends to penalize teams more than necessary for what he perceives as “bad” losses, and give credit if he perceives losses as “forgivable.” Thus UNC at 10 (lost to BC) vs. Mich. St. at 3 (losses to MD and UNC) and Syracuse at 7 (hey, don’t sleep on Cleveland State!). Downgrading a team based on years past is just part of that. In fact, you should kind of be flattered by it. He’s come right out and admitted that he has been “fooled” by Clemson in the past.

Now, as for whether that’s a legitimate basis to question is professionalism and mental capacity, I’d take it easy if I were you. I’m of the belief that (as stated somewhere above) ALL voters have their opinions colored by a team’s performance in past years. It’s human nature. Wilner should actually get credit for admitting it. I’m not agreeing with him about Clemson, but I at least see the bias he’s bringing to the table. I personally think Oklahoma is not deserving of being in the top 10, and that they’re the beneficiaries of a soft road schedule and voters employing the “gosh, shouldn’t there be at least ONE Big 12 team in the top 10?” theory. But there are a lot of numbers in OK’s favor that supporters can use to justify a 5/6 ranking.

2. Be very careful with employing the transitive properties of wins theory in arguing your case. “We beat X, and X beat Y, so we’re better than Y” is as old an argument as it is bogus. The fact is that just because Team 1 beats Team 2, even if it’s on Team 2’s floor, doesn’t mean that Team 1 is better than Team 2. Yes, it can be that a team beats a higher ranked team and still is ranked lower than that team the next week. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s about WHO you beat, HOW, and WHERE. You’ve got to take the body of work, as they say.

So, does Clemson deserve to be ranked 23? Well, in my opinion, that’s too low. But do they deserve to be in the top 10? I don’t think so. Again, just my opinion. They’ve beaten a couple of likely Tournament teams in Illinois and Miami (both away, which is good), but not much else.

The moral of my story: If your objection is that a voter “hates” your school or is “irrational,” don’t respond with hatred or irrationality. See where he’s coming from, accept it for what it is, and tell him where you disagree.

TommyCoug

Wow, I knew that there “was a small gene pool” in the SouthEast…now it’s been proven! Maybe they should go back and rank tractor pulls or demo derbys!

Pretty good Top 25 this week Jon.

tigerfan78

Your Pomeroy rankings also have Clemson ranked 13th, by the way.

doktor floyd

i dont know nuthin about no tractor pulls, but gravedigger shore done kicked ass at that there monster jam at the fairgrounds over yonder last night! he put a whoopin on bigfoot! wwwooooooiiiiieeeeeeee! i reckon i might just rank it 14.

TommyCoug’s Mom

Tommy!! Tommy Cougar!! The short bus is here to take you back. Did you finsh your wax job? And put my shoes back. You know they don’t let you wear pumps in your ward.

Sean Ramsay

I think you should leave Clemson off your list every week, no matter how many games they win and no matter who they beat. If these moronic eTards are indicative of Clemson’s ability to produce students and/or athletes, they don’t deserve a ranking at all.

Azzhat

You are still an left coast joke who shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the AP poll. This is why the coaches poll hold more water.

Leftcoast

Think of these Clemson clowns as an uninvited guest who parks their oil leaking truck on your lawn, trashes the yard, soils the bed, insults the host, insists on yelling down all other conversation and then overstays their welcome.

Worse, these guests seem to wonder why you don’t like ’em.

The analogy works for me but my wife suggests a second choice. How about the plague of boils ala Exodus 9? Dust that infects that blows from the south to infect the whole land?

Jon… how in the world could you write and article like that and say the following in this post: “And the reason was quite simple: The Tigers always, always, always start well, and just when you start thinking they’re pretty good, things fall apart”

It is obvious that you are basing leaving us out of the vote because of past, and therefore breaking the rules dictated by the AP.

Your voting credentials should be revoked. You lose more and more credibility every single week. Clemson has multiple wins over quality teams and did anything but fade last season, advancing to the ACC Tournament Final for only the second time in school history. Oliver Purnell is building a powerhouse at a place that has very little basketball tradition to speak of. You would be well served to open your eyes and see that something special is happening in the northwest corner of South Carolina!!!

clemson fan

I’m a clemson fan, and as much as I hate to say it…this guy is right. By the end of the season Clemson will be no better than #15 in the rankings. They will however make it to the tourny, which has been a gift seeing that we have taken a long long break from being a regular at the big dance.

Allowat

Based on the rules, Mr. Wilner’s explanations are too granular and verbose for his own good.

So to whom are the voters accountable? The fans? The readers? Or would it be the AP Sports Editor?

Wilbon

Admit you know absolutely nothing about basketball and resign your vote before its taken away from you.

You were obviously that kid who was picked last or not at all when it was time to play.

CBB-API

If Clemson beats Wake then they might make the top 15 in Wilner’s vote.

Wayne

Must be something in the water out there on the West coast. I’m seeing Beastmode and danthemancalfan showing some major logic flaws. Your reasoning shows lack of oxygen to the brain. I’m now lumping you two classless, ignorant clowns in the same group as Wilner. You do NOT know what you’re talking about, and stating that any of the Clemson fans have no class for defending the school they love against an ignorant, pompous clown simply shows your lack of class. I prefer not to call anyone out since it solves nothing, but you guys are a trip and deserve to be called out. As for Cal – before Jeff Tedford, Cal was a NON-ENTITY in the sportsworld, so I guess you’re just trying to make up for lost time. You have NO history (well- other than drugs and riots – congrats on being morons), so get over it. When we want to hear from someone that knows nothing about sports, we’ll ask you guys to step up. Until then – keep defending your dork friend. Hmmm? I wonder if Jon is using multiple screen names?

Peace out – brah! (Isn’t that what you guys say?) lol

milo

The thing that I noticed most with the Clemson thing is the crazy mob mentality. Is that a Southern thing because if you put it next to lynchings, it’s not a very pretty historic and cultural reference.

All indications so far this year are that we’re better than 15th best. Are you too using the past to cloud your judgement? You say “15th” with such conviction as if you KNOW where we’ll be?

So Dan/CalFan/ClemsonNOTfan, what is your logic behind your statement?

And PS: if you’ve followed this, you’d know that we’re not talking about where Jon thinks we’ll be at year’s end. We’re talking about where we currently stand, based on this year, TO DATE.

Allowat

Mob mentality a southern thing? Maybe a Southern California thing.

Come on….Why can’t we all just get along.

milo

FYI: Northern California isn’t Southern California. Also if you want to pick nits, well there was the Rodney King riots and it happened ONCE. Lynching however happened many, many, many, many times in history.

allowat

It did….and in California as well as many other non southeastern places.

FHG hooking up with cousin/sister much better than you hooking up with Thad.

Nice job but y’all will have to move to MA to get married.

Dave

You sir are a moron.

1 – Wake Forest has played an epic cream puff schedule. You rank them 8th. They are undefeated. And yes, they have played cream puffs. But they still hold wins per the KenPom ratings over #4, #10, #28 and #72. UCLA meanwhile has lost TWICE. Their highest ranked opponent per KenPom ALL SEASON is #29 Texas – who beat them. Their second highest ranked opponent all season is #45 – USC – which is also their highest ranked win.

You rank UCLA ahead of Wake?

2 – UNC is #10 in your poll. They have beaten Michigan friggin’ State by over 30 points. Michigan State has 2 losses and so does UNC. Yet Michigan State rests third in your poll?

3 – Two of your additions were easy to identify but one of those two wasn’t Clemson. Clemson is undefeated you moron. Their SOS per your beloved KenPom is higher than UCLA’s. And they have wins over KenPom’s 18th, 27th and 50th ranked teams – ALL ON THE ROAD. How was Clemson not an easy addition.

So let’s refresh. UCLA is #7 with their best win being over the #45 team and a SOS of 199. Wake Forest is undefeated and has 3 wins over Top 30 teams. Clemson has 3 road wins over Top 50 teams and is undefeated. UNC is ranked 10th in your poll with wins over three Top 30 teams.

Yes, the logic is obvious. But your application of it is sorry at best. Nice bias, moron.
Wake Forest played an epically cream puff schedule? Fair enough. Until you consider that once your SOS is over 100 it really doesn’t matter. One cream puff is just as good as another. So at that point you have to ask – who have they beaten. Wake has wins over 3 Top 30 teams per Kenpom – your supposed barometer. UNC, BYU (who Wake beat on the road to end a 53 game home winning streak) and Baylor (on a neutral court). Who, please do tell, has UCLA with a SOS of 199 (cream puffs anyone) beaten this year to match that mark? Answer NO ONE.

You sir are a fraud. You obviously don’t like the ACC. Because ranking Michigan State ahead of UNC after UNC beat them by over 30 points is laughable. And ranking UCLA, a team whose best win is over the 45th best team in the land per your blessed KenPom, ahead of Wake Forest, who has wins over #4, #10 and #28, is without any rational merit based on what you claim to be your logic.

Here is what you said about your ranking of Wake Forest this week to the Dagger.

“The AP also encourages voters to make drastic changes in the ballots from week to week if necessary. It’s not uncommon for me to move teams 8-10-12 spots (in football or basketball). Wake’s schedule was awful, so I had them way down the ballot. Then they beat the Heels, so I moved them up. I’m of the belief that strength of schedule and quality wins/quality losses are as important, if not more important than, won/loss record. I have no problem with a two-loss team being ahead of a one-loss (or no-loss) team if there’s a difference in SOS and quality wins/quality losses. And in my opinion, Michigan State and UCLA have played much tougher schedules than Wake. Yes, Wake beat UNC which beat MSU, but that was six weeks ago. I always struggle with how long to give results vs common opponent precedence over everything else — you can only do it for so long before it paralyzes your ballot. (That, too, has happened to me.) I digressed a little there, sorry. Back to the emphasis on SOS: I also have no problem moving teams up after they lose, if they lose to good teams. My thinking is, if you’re No. 20 and you lose to No. 10, that doesn’t mean you aren’t the 20th-best team. In my football poll in the fall of 2007, I had two loss-LSU ahead of no-loss Ohio State because of the difference in the team’s schedules. My system usually earns me the “worst voter of the week” award on Pollspeak.”

In light of this, let’s look at these facts from your beloved Pomeroy:

Pitt has one win vs top ten, but it’s their only win vs the top 50.
Duke has zero wins vs top ten.
UNC has zero wins vs top ten.
Oklahoma has zero wins vs the top ten
UCLA has zero wins against anyone in the Top 40.

WAKE FOREST HAS THREE WINS AGAINST THE TOP 40 AND TWO WINS AGAINST THE TOP 10.

By that logic one would expect you to vote them No. 1. Of course you don’t apply logic consistently, that would force you to do things that put your beloved Pac Ten down further in the rankings.

Mark

It is clear that this sportswriter has lost all credibility. It’s a good thing he doesn’t make bets based on his picks or he would be broke. Maybe he should… that would demonstrate that he seriously believes it. So how about it Wilner? Going start betting against Clemson?

Will

Wilner, I suggest you leave Clemson off your ballot entirely just to spite these fools. =]

David Rowland

Moron.

tom nelson

it’s official

you don’t deserve a vote

hell…you don’t even deserve a job

Johnny

I don’t care what the supposed AP guidelines say a voter is supposed to do in regards to considering past performances. The bottom line is that voters generally DO consider the team’s recent history and Wilner isn’t the only one who does it. The very fact that there are preseason polls already tell you there is already a bias and subjective lean by alot of voters toward certain teams.

And lets be honest, is it really such a crime to consider the past performance of a team in to your rankings? I don’t have absolute proof but in watching college basketball over many years, there is a correlation between good teams staying consistently good year in and year out. Considering the teams recent past performance and especially the coach they have probably increases your accuracy of your rankings more then if you just looked at their performance for the current year.

Read and comprehend. It’s a simple way to not look like an idiot. Recent past? Take last year. 10-6 in conf, third place. ACC Finals. NCAA tournament. That’s hardly condisered “collapsing” or “falling apart” once ACC play starts.

And if you look at Oliver Purnell’s history, especially at Clemson where he’s gotten better every year, you’ll realize the stupidity of your comments.

And lastly, when an organization pays you to do work and they say, “here’s how you’re supposed to do this…” you do it that way or you get fired. It’s called insubordination. Look it up, Nunzio.